“Praxis”, interesting word, not used in common speech. In writing, it turns up in articles about social change, theories of politics, and very deep insights into how mankind organizes their social/political/philosophical mess.

I must admit that I was unfamiliar with the term. A friend asked me to read an article that referenced some authors connected to the Frankfort School, studying social research and philosophy in particular to Western Culture.

The article was structured in the classical outline style, most paragraphs beginning with a citation introducing an author with specific ideas. The intention is that the concluding summary would be supported by a collection of brilliant thoughts.

My problem with the article is that I was completely distracted by each citation because of the complexity of their contribution. The author tried to connect them all, but I was unconvinced by the effort.

What I did learn was an accidental understanding of the word “praxis” as it is used in writing about societal change. It disturbed me.

Definition:  doing (Greek)

Aristotle held that there were three basic activities of humans: theoria(thinking), poiesis (making), and praxis (doing).

 Factory Records owner Tony Wilson describes praxis as “doing something, and then only afterwards, finding out why you did it”.

Praxis may be described as a form of critical thinking and comprises the combination of reflection and action. Praxis can be viewed as a progression of cognitive and physical actions:

• Taking the action
• Considering the impacts of the action
• Analysing the results of the action by reflecting upon it
• Altering and revising conceptions and planning following reflection
• Implementing these plans in further actions

This creates a cycle which can be viewed in terms of educational settings, learners and educational facilitators.

By definition, praxis implies “doing”, and when used in the current climate of social change, it is done sometimes without much prior thought or analysis. A good example is Congress voting on a massive healthcare bill, without reading it, then analyses the impact after it has already passed.

Going back to what Wilson said,  things are done first upon the public, then thought about later. Making essential changes later is nearly impossible.

The process is only helpful if the full cycle is implemented. As it is, the action (doing) is done first, analysis later. What happens if something in the “action” attracts attention?

I’m thinking that potentially helpful ideas are placed into action (praxis), then the theories theories are highjacked along the way by the impacts that meet different needs, and then never analyzed or changed.

I have to think about this more, but it’s too complicated at 1:30 in the morning.